CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, December 6, 1999
6:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen, King and Ransom
ABSENT: Councilmember Lee
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exceptions of Councilmember Ransom, who arrived later in the meeting, and Councilmember Lee.
Upon motion by Councilmember King, seconded by Councilmember Hansen and carried 5 - 0, Councilmember Lee was excused.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
City Manager Robert Deis reported that the Zevenbergen appeal hearing has been postponed until January 24, 2000. He invited Councilmembers to the All-City staff meeting on Friday and reminded them of dinner with the 32nd District legislators and the swearing-in ceremony next Monday.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Deputy Mayor Montgomery moved approval of the agenda. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 5-0.
7. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS
(a) Public hearing to consider citizens’ comments on the 2000 User Fee Schedules for the City’s Fee Based Services
John Hawley, Senior Budget Analyst, reviewed that increases to the City’s user fees are part of the City’s response to the passage of Initiative 695. Noting that this was discussed in detail last week, he briefly reviewed the fee proposal.
Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to address the Council on this matter, Councilmember Hansen moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember King seconded the motion, which carried 5 - 0.
Councilmember Ransom arrived at 6:45 p.m.
Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Wendy Barry, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, said the School District charges for field use on a per-person-per-sport basis. She said that charging per game encourages organizations to use the fields efficiently, whereas the other approach does not.
Mayor Jepsen expressed consensus to bring forward the proposed 2000 User Fee Schedules next week for action.
(b) Public hearing to consider citizens’ comments on the 2000 operating and capital budgets
Mr. Deis noted that the budget to be brought forward next week includes utility taxes, franchise fees and new user fees as a response to passage of Initiative 695. He assured Council that over the long haul the City will be "O.K." on the operations side.
Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to address the Council on this matter, Councilmember Hansen moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilmember Hansen stated that Council developed consensus on the budget last week, and Councilmember Gustafson complimented the staff on the budget presentations.
Mayor Jepsen expressed Council consensus to bring the budget forward for action next week as discussed.
8. NEW BUSINESS
(a) Development Code - Phase 1
Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, provided an overview of the development of the Phase 1 procedural changes to the Development Code, including the participation of the Planning Academy and review by the Planning Commission. He mentioned that neighborhood meetings will be mandatory prior to Type B and Type C applications, which should solve problems early and prevent confrontation.
Responding to Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Mr. Stewart said staff attendance at these meetings is not recommended, but the applicant will be required to provide the City with a written summary.
Referring to page 34 of the Council packet, Mr. Stewart explained that once a year anyone will be able to initiate an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. It will be considered during the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan. Anyone can request the City Council, Planning Commission or Director to initiate an amendment to the Development Code.
Mr. Stewart noted disagreement about the designation of the hearing authority on quasi-judicial items. The proposal does not change current practice of having the Planning Commission review Type C actions; however, many Planning Academy members wished to designate the Hearing Examiner as the hearing body. He explained that the Hearing Examiner model provides a higher level of technical review of the Code; whereas, the Planning Commission model provides a broader base of community input into the decision-making process.
Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart said the ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission will be brought to Council in January, 2000. There will be a public hearing, and at that point Council would have the opportunity to review the ordinance in as much detail as it wishes. He recommended that Council focus on those amendments about which there is public or Council concern, rather than go through all of the amendments at a Council meeting.
Mayor Jepsen agreed that this is a reasonable approach. Council concurred. Mayor Jepsen noted that less than a dozen citizens offered all of the amendments, as also occurred in the Comprehensive Plan process.
Councilmember King thanked Mr. Stewart for the success of the Planning Academy. Mr. Stewart said it gave the community an opportunity to inform the staff about community values and the staff an opportunity to inform the community about the constraints upon land use regulation.
Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.
(1) Lena Wood, 20415 25th Avenue NW, said her family owns two parcels in Shoreline. She urged Council to consider 5,000 square foot zoning for blocks where two or three other 5,000 square foot lots already exist. She said smaller lot sizes in certain areas can create more affordable housing and be compatible with the neighborhood, as well as generate additional tax revenue for the City.
Mayor Jepsen noted that the City Council has spent a lot of time considering lot sizes over the past few years. He said the Comprehensive Plan allows a 7,200 square foot minimum lot size for single family lots, but exceptions are allowed in the Code.
Mr. Stewart explained that promotion of affordable housing is a major part of Phase 2, and the Planning Academy spent a lot of time studying dense housing types. Shoreline is trying to provide opportunities for denser housing but it must occur in a manner consistent with community character.
Mayor Jepsen pointed out a current exception process in the Code. Mr. Stewart responded that contract rezones provide for a site specific change of zone to permit higher density development. Two such projects are coming to Council soon. He noted that staff will talk with anyone about development of their property based on the Comprehensive Plan and current Code.
(b) Proposed 2000 Statement of Legislative Priorities
Joyce Nichols, Community and Government Relations Manager, noted that the upcoming legislative session will be a challenge because: 1) it is only 60 days long; 2) it will be focused on I-695 impacts; 3) the House of Representatives is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats; and 4) the bills that were alive at the end of last year’s session are still alive. This means that some of the priorities are carryovers from last year.
Continuing, Ms. Nichols said there are some new issues because of I-695. One is how to address the issue of sales tax equalization, which was funded by the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax. It is important to keep funding for sales tax equalization from sales tax revenue at the top of the legislative agenda and to educate legislators about why sales tax equalization is crucial. Other top funding priorities will be public health, criminal justice, transit and transportation. Key priorities in other areas include: 1) keeping the legislature from pre-empting current local taxing authority, particularly the gambling tax; 2) opposing additional sanctions or penalties on cities that are not meeting growth targets; and 3) supporting federal legislation that would preserve or protect State and local taxing authority on electronic commerce. She provided background on this issue, noting that an advisory commission is meeting to make recommendations about it.
Ms. Nichols concluded by commenting on the legislative agendas of the Suburban Cities Association and King County, noting buildable lands as a potential area for continuing disagreement. Work is proceeding with various groups to develop legislation acceptable to King County, the suburban cities and other stakeholder groups.
Mr. Deis asked if the County is moving toward incentives for meeting housing goals rather than penalties for not meeting them. Ms. Nichols said she had not seen the most recent draft of the proposal, but she felt any changes will still move away from the original intent of the Growth Management Act (GMA). She said the City’s approach is to see if GMA works before adding new restrictions.
Ms. Nichols said Shoreline’s Comprehensive Plan tries to make it possible for the projected densities to occur, but market forces are the controlling factor. She pointed out that the proposed penalties would take away State revenues that cities would use to create infrastructure that would allow higher densities. She felt the problems of growth should be solved locally, rather than in the legislature.
Ms. Nichols concluded by distributing "talking points" for the meeting with the state legislators on Monday evening. She noted that all three legislators have called and asked what they can do to help Shoreline. She described helpful actions taken by each to assist Shoreline.
Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.
(1) Randy Bannecker, representing the Seattle/King County Association of Realtors, 12015 115th Avenue NE, Kirkland, offered his perspective on the buildable lands legislation. He hoped compromise language could be developed that would be acceptable to the cities and other groups. He commented that affordable housing is more available in Snohomish and Pierce Counties and that many King County workers must live outside King County. He said the goal of the legislation is to hold local jurisdictions accountable for zoning and to ensure that urban King County is not unduly pressuring the rural area.
Mayor Jepsen said the Council felt the intentions of the legislation were lofty but the bill itself needs major changes. He said Shoreline is meeting GMA policies and has learned that simply having smaller lots is not a guarantee of affordable housing.
Commenting on the unfortunate timing of this issue, Mr. Deis pointed out that Shoreline will be losing a great amount of transit service, which supports higher densities. At the same time it is having to use utility taxes to fund operations, which means the loss of a future revenue source to deal with capital projects. Governments are trying to make do with less and provide fewer services, yet higher densities increase the demand for these services.
Ms. Nichols pointed out that financing from the Housing Trust Fund assists individuals with housing, and it is critical to find a stable source of continued funding for housing subsidies.
Mayor Jepsen asked about King County’s attitude toward buildable lands, and Ms. Nichols said the County Council took action to support this program as a priority. She did not know if action has been taken on a particular policy. Mayor Jepsen asked that this be tracked.
Mayor Jepsen commented on local control of sales tax revenue, noting that he opposes giving municipalities the ability to charge more sales tax, but he did support giving cities the authority to collect a higher percentage of it. He referred to page 42 of the Council packet, "Shared Revenue Programs," and asked if the word "current" should not be inserted to read: "Strongly supports legislation to fund sales tax equalization from current sales taxes . . ." Ms. Nichols said adding the word "current" might make the policy too restrictive. She said one of the hallmarks of this session is going to be thinking outside the box and doing things differently.
Councilmember Gustafson raised the issue of e-commerce, noting this was a significant topic at the National League of Cities conference. He wondered if this should be a discussion point with legislators. Ms. Nichols responded that Shoreline’s position on this issue should be transmitted to State legislators to take into account in formulating their own positions. Councilmember Gustafson wished to have information on the electronic commerce issue to assist Councilmembers in taking a position.
Councilmember Hansen commented that this is a much bigger issue for the State than it is for Shoreline. However, there is not much that the State legislators can do about it because this will be controlled at the federal level. Therefore, the goal should be to influence the federal legislators and make them aware of the local and State impacts.
Councilmember Gustafson agreed that this must be worked from the federal legislative aspect, but he noted that Governor Locke is on the E-Commerce Commission, so working with local legislators may influence him.
(c) Allocation of Gambling Taxes
There was Council consensus to add this item to the agenda at Councilmember Hansen’s request.
Noting his consistent advocacy that gambling taxes not be used to fund the operating budget, Councilmember Hansen pointed out that the 2000 budget has $2.3 million in gambling taxes going into the General Fund. He recommended that Council adopt a policy that gambling tax revenues always be allocated to the capital budget. He believed that this year it would be simple to allocate the gambling tax revenue to the General Capital Fund and the Roads Capital Fund and reduce the transfers over from the General Fund beginning balance. He emphasized the importance of adopting such a policy now because, although the change would have no effect on the overall budget, it would make a statement about how the City plans to use the revenue it raises from gambling.
Councilmember King concurred. She commented that placing gambling taxes in the General Fund puts the City in a position of being open to "blackmail" by gambling establishments who might threaten to move if the City did not comply with their wishes.
Councilmember Ransom questioned the impact for future budgets of such a policy, noting that the City has historically used about $750,000 in gambling tax revenue in the General Fund. He felt this recommendation should be analyzed very carefully before the decision is made to commit all gambling revenues to the capital budget.
Mr. Deis said Council must consider the long-term impacts of this proposal. He recalled that staff recommended at the Budget Retreat that the City minimize its reliance on the gambling tax revenues by dividing the 11-percent tax rate and designating eight percent to operations and three percent to capital in 2000 and seven percent to operations and four percent to capital in 2001. He questioned what will replace the gambling tax as a source of revenue for the operating budget in the future. He noted that Council adopted a policy two years ago requiring that the budget be sustainable over five years.
Councilmember Hansen said this is exactly why he wants to dedicate gambling tax revenues to the capital fund. He did not want to be in a position of saying, "We can’t live without gambling revenue." He expressed his fear that the City is already dependent on gambling revenue if it cannot identify alternative funding sources.
Mayor Jepsen asked where the City will obtain the funds to replace the gambling tax revenues designated to the General Fund. Councilmember Hansen said he expects the replacement funds to come from transfers. Mr. Deis said staff can provide the details of what makes up the transfers in the 2000 budget.
Mayor Jepsen noted that Council has generally agreed with the policy that Council-member Hansen proposed and that Council has recognized the City must "wean" itself from this income source slowly.
Clarifying for Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Deis said long-range projections do not at this point include franchise fees from the independent sewer and water districts.
Councilmember Gustafson concurred with Mayor Jepsen. He supported the policy goal, but he said he is not convinced that the City must achieve it all at once.
Mayor Jepsen summarized that staff will clarify with Councilmember Hansen whether the City can implement his proposal without any effect on the 2000 budget and that he may then wish to propose a policy regarding future use of gambling tax revenues.
Councilmember Ransom commented that the original justification for the gambling tax was to regulate and provide support services to the industry. Now the Gambling Commission handles regulation and most of the support services. While there has been only one court case regarding the allocation of gambling tax revenues to a city’s general fund, he said this practice is increasingly under question. He expressed his fear that allocating all of the gambling tax revenue to capital programs could make Shoreline a target city for a legal challenge.
Mr. Deis clarified the court decision that gambling tax revenues should be used first to fund enforcement activity and, if funds remain, as the City chooses. He asserted that the risk of a political challenge (e.g., the State legislature limiting how cities may spend gambling tax revenues) is greater than that of a court challenge.
9. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Felicia Schwindt, 2209 NE 177th Street, expressed concern that the Neighborhood Traffic Safety program is inadequately funded. She said if NE 177th Street was designated for much-needed traffic calming, there would be no money for construction. She mentioned a major accident on her street today, and she resubmitted two letters previously sent to the City Council. She questioned how long neighborhoods will have to wait for the City to address problems.
(b) Walt Hagen, 711 NE 193rd Street, said the City should create fee schedules on a cost justification basis and not simply to generate money for the General Fund. He agreed that dedicating gambling taxes to capital projects would help to improve Shoreline’s failing infrastructure. He opposed the use of capital funds to build a city hall or to make "Main St. U.S.A." out of Aurora Avenue.
(c) Cheryl McKeon, 2236 NE 177th Street, noted the ongoing nature of the traffic problems on NE 177th Street and the fact that a traffic control study was done on the street which showed that 1,000 cars use the street, 15 percent of them going ten miles over the speed limit. She asked for funding for physical mitigation and increased enforcement.
(d) Lynda Hart, 2123 NE 177th Street, echoed the comments of her neighbors. She said she was glad to hear about the Neighborhood Traffic Committee, but her concern was that this is a way to postpone addressing the issues. She wanted the City Council to have funding available to deal with this problem.
(e) Maria Brennan, 2245 NE 177th Street, commented that her family is moving because her car was broken into and her tires were slashed and because of traffic problems on her street.
Mr. Deis recalled that staff introduced the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program to Council last summer. He said the advisory committees have met twice and have developed a two-phase approach that staff will soon present to Council. He explained that the first phase of the proposed approach includes education and enforcement and that the second phase includes the consideration of physical mitigation. While he acknowledged that citizen consideration and support of potential physical mitigations is time consuming, he asserted that it is worthwhile. He noted that an open house about the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program will be held on January 19. He concluded that staff will consult with Shoreline Police Chief Sue Rahr about past and potential traffic enforcement activities on NE 177th Street.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At 8:52 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
_______________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk